It’s snake oil time. I started to write this last month when I heard they’d be coming around again, but I couldn’t find the link to the DIBELS homepage. Thanks to Doug Johnson for pointing the way. Things are more interesting today. This morning I read Doug’s call for more testing.

Doug also recently posted a link to a post written by Ken Goodman on a mailing list at Stephen Krashen’s site, which I’m now subscribed to. Professor Goodman wrote sarcastically about the power of the DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills). He said that DIBELS is the perfect test in the same sense that Katrina might have been the perfect storm. Since both of these links (to Goodman/Krashen and the call for more testing) point to opposite points on the testing compass, I should probably quit here and let them cancel each other out. But I wanted to say something about DIBELS.

I liked Ken Goodman’s statement for its ironic edge.

It’s basic premise is that it can reduce reading development to a series of tasks, each measurable in one minute. Each test has arbitrary benchmarks which get more difficult to achieve in successive grades. The test authors claim that the sub-tests are “stepping stones” to reading proficiency and each prepares the child for the next test.

Snake oil is a derogatory term for any generic “patent medicine” used as a cure-all. I’d say that DIBELS fits the definition. My first experience with it came a couple of years ago when I was asked if I wanted to administer the test to fourth graders. I didn’t know anything about it so I asked for some information and I was directed to the website where I eventually found the page describing the reading fluency test.

Goodman’s description accurately represents what is on the page and what I’ve seen:

Oral Reading Fluency. Starting in first grade the children are given a five paragraph essay on a topic written in first person. The score is the number of words read correctly in one minute. The children learn to skip any words they don’t know and say the words they know as fast as they can. The tester says any word the child stops at after a few seconds. Some children use that as a signal that they should wait for the tester to say the word before proceeding. And a minute goes by very rapidly.

Oral Retelling Fluency. Teachers complained that counting correct words didn’t show what the children understood. So the DIBELS folks added an oral retelling. The score is the number of words the kids produce in one minute that are more or less on topic. No attention is paid to the quality of the retelling. Honest.

As you can see, this test does not measure anything but raw behavior. It’s a step back in time. As a teacher what I get when it’s over is a list of my students’ names with a number under columns headed ORF and RF. One set for Fall and one set for Winter. Since all of the numbers are higher now, I’m supposed to feel good about doing such a great job. But what did I do? I don’t know! When I ask the question about how this test is going to help me as a teacher, I hear “It’s just another piece of information. It’s like a snapshot.”

My response, “Yeah. A snapshot of the back of each kid’s head.”

“Hey. Their scores are up. Don’t complain. Just keep doing what you do.”

I didn’t want to give the test. But I found out that whether I gave it or not, the kids would take it. So now someone comes in and walks the kids one at a time down the hall and sends them back 5-10 minutes later. No big deal, right?

I don’t see it like that. First of all, the tests are meaningless. They’re meaningless to me anyway, but I wonder about how my students feel about them. They watch us all the time, and not only do we teach them how to read and write and do math, we also convey our beliefs about those subjects. If the kids are taking tests to see how fast they can read and talk, they will naturally assume that we want them to read fast. Fast is good. Talking is good. It doesn’t even matter what you say, as long as it’s on topic. I wonder what else we can measure simply by timing it? Heh!

As to Doug’s claim that “What gets tested, gets taught,” if it’s taught because it’s tested, what typically gets taught is not the skills or content, but test-taking itself. And we have NO say in how it’s tested when it comes packaged like a patent cure. Doug claims that “we live in a society that believes in testing. And quite honestly, a degree of accountability shown through testing is not all bad,” However, he also points to a different post where he says

The general public believes such tests are reliable, objective and understandable despite the fact they measure only a few basic skills and penalize students who are poor test-takers. Assessment tools that assess higher level thinking skills and the application of skills are also necessary.

I don’t disagree with a word of that. I don’t see how we can endorse accountability using such primitive tools when the cost of their use is public misperception, institutional disruption, and personal grief to students who are being railroaded in the process. DIBELS is just one example of these things. Our energy is being totally misdirected on account of all this nonsense. We certainly don’t need MORE of it!

Instead of the DIBELS, teacher time in elementary school could be used to make checklists, and keep running records which are useful for miscue analysis. It would take about the same amount of time, and it would provide teachers with useful information about how students are processing written material. What DIBELS gives us is something like a “testing pill” that we can easily and painlessly use to get a measure. Never mind that it isn’t rational.

Update 2/10/2006: The DIBELS Clearinghouse is worth a look if you are searching for more opinion and commentary.

We feel good now, don’t we?